Shit on the UK.Cunt wrote: Happy Birthday, Scot Dutchy. Any special plans for today?

Shit on the UK.Cunt wrote: Happy Birthday, Scot Dutchy. Any special plans for today?
Chairman of Icahn Enterprises and longtime Trump friend Carl Icahn made millions off of his steel-related stock sale last week, just days before the president announced plans to impose heavy tariffs on imports, as reported by Think Progress.
The billionaire investor and former Trump "special advisor" dumped $31.3 million of stock in Manitowoc Co. Inc. (MTW), a company heavily dependent on steel, according to a Feb. 22 SEC filing. Icahn disclosed that he sold off nearly 1 million shares of the firm, which manufactures cranes and lifting solutions, and requires a great deal of steel to make its products. Shares of the Fortune 500 equipment maker have sank approximately 10% since Wednesday close on the news. MTW is trading around $27 on Friday afternoon, compared to the $32 to $34 price at which Icahn sold it.
Just one day after he was announced as a new member, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee resigned on Thursday from the board of the Country Music Association Foundation, the charitable arm of the organization that runs the annual CMA Awards and the CMA Festival. His resignation followed swift criticism from members of the country music community who took issue with his anti-gay and pro-gun views.
In his resignation letter to the CMA Foundation, which was obtained by several news outlets, Huckabee called his critics bullies and said he was resigning to end "unnecessary distraction" to the foundation.
From what I've read it appears that he was elected by the 12 member board of the foundation, not by members of the CMA. I think the foundation would have kept him as a member, even with the criticism.Seabass wrote:They didn't already know he was anti-gay?
I dont have to do that as the Brexshitters are doing a great job.pErvinalia wrote:Shit on the UK.Cunt wrote: Happy Birthday, Scot Dutchy. Any special plans for today?
Precedent? LOL.Tero wrote:Scott Walker Refusing To Hold Elections GOP Might Lose
In late December, two Republican lawmakers stepped down from the Wisconsin legislature to join Gov. Scott Walker’s administration.
Their seats, in Assembly District 42 and Senate District 1, have sat empty ever since — and are likely to stay that way until January of 2019.
In a remarkable break from precedent, Walker announced at the time that he would not hold special elections in those districts, leaving 229,904 Wisconsinites without representation for almost a year.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker ... ratic-wins
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... fs/554903/After the president flirted last week with strict gun-control policies, National Rifle Association lobbyists swooped in to set him straight, and GOP leaders backed them up by putting off quick votes on tighter gun restrictions.
But top Republicans may have met their match when it comes to trade—an issue that has animated Trump’s politics for three decades. Last week, he declared that he would unilaterally impose steep tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum as soon as his administration could get him the papers to sign. The hastily arranged announcement horrified the veteran free-traders who lead the GOP in Congress: not only House Speaker Paul Ryan, but also the chairmen of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over trade, Kevin Brady of Texas and Orrin Hatch of Utah, respectively. Trump has rebuffed the efforts by Republican lawmakers and some of his own advisers to slow his drive for tariffs, and GOP leaders appear to lack either the will or the votes in Congress to block him legislatively.
The Republican leaders fear a trade war that would dampen the economic benefits of their tax cuts, which the GOP is depending on to stave off heavy losses in November’s midterm congressional elections. Republicans were clearly hoping the White House would roll back Trump’s announcement over the weekend, either by putting off the tariffs or by making clear that key U.S. trading partners would be exempted. But the president gave no ground, defending his decision in a series of tweets and even welcoming a trade war as “easy to win.” He insisted that the tariffs would go away only if Canada and Mexico agreed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. With Trump digging in, Ryan and his lieutenants tried a more confrontational approach.
“We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan,” AshLee Strong, the speaker’s spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The new tax-reform law has boosted the economy and we certainly don’t want to jeopardize those gains.” Strong sent reporters an article blaming a dip in the stock market—whose previous gains Trump championed—on investor jitters over the president’s directive. Brady spent the weekend in Mexico and on television urging the president to narrow the tariffs, and on Monday, his office said he was gathering Republican signatures for a letter of concern to the president.
Trump still didn’t flinch. “No, we are not backing down,” he told reporters who asked about Ryan’s criticism in the Oval Office on Monday.
Congress could stop Trump from imposing the tariffs tomorrow if it wanted to. The Constitution gives the legislative branch explicit authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” And just last month, on a 400-2 vote, the House passed legislation that extends for three years a program that reduces various tariffs for businesses.
But over the last 50 years, Congress has delegated the bulk of its trade power to the president, and there isn’t much expectation that it’ll wrest it back anytime soon. “To claw those powers back would in effect take veto-proof majorities coming out of the House and Senate, and I just don’t see that as remotely likely in the current circumstances,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow specializing in trade at the Council on Foreign Relations. “So I think the president does hold all the cards here.” Trump is imposing the tariffs under a provision of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that allows the president to do so for reasons of national security. That rationale has rarely been used, trade experts said, and it could lead other countries to cite their own national security to restrict imports of U.S.-made products.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests